The document discusses the laws of sedition and unlawful activities in India. It provides details on Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which defines the crime of sedition. It outlines the history of sedition laws in India and key court cases related to sedition like the Tilak trial of 1897 and the Kedar Nath Singh case of 1962. It also discusses the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967, including its key features and timeline of amendments. Recent court cases involving these laws like the cases of journalist Siddique Kappan and activist Stan Swamy are also summarized.

1. The Use of law of Sedition and
the Unlawful Activities
Prevention Act by
Government of India

2. Section 124A of IPC – Sedition
• The IPC Section 124 A says, “Whoever, by
words, either spoken or written, or by
signs, or by visible representation, or
otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into
hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts
to excite disaffection towards the
Government established by law in
India shall be punished with imprisonment
which may extend to three years, to which
fine may be added, or with fine.

3. History of Sedition Law in India
• IPC Amendment Act of 1898 – It made
amendments to the changes brought
through the Penal Code in 1870.
• The current Section 124A is said to be
similar to the amendments made to it in
1898 with few omissions made in 1937,
1948, 1950, and by Part B States (Law) Act,
1951.
1837 – Thomas Macaulay (Famous for his Macaulay Minute on
Indian Education 1835) drafted the Penal Code in 1837.
• Sedition was placed in the Penal Code 1837 as Section
113.
• Later, it was omitted, to only be readded in 1870 back
in the Penal Code by an amendment introduced by Sir
James Stephen.
• British Raj in India had introduced this section on
sedition under the title “Exciting Disaffection”.

4. X

5. Why can Sedition
Law be important?
• The law keeps a check on anti-
national, secessionist and
terrorist elements that can
hamper the public order and
incite violence and induce
enmity.
• It helps in the stability of the
elected government which
could otherwise be attempted
to be thrown out using illegal
and violent means
o As the seeds of sedition law were
sown in colonial times, it is often
described as a draconian law that
can be used against what is
otherwise is constitutionally
guaranteed freedom of speech and
expression
o It has an ill effect on constructive
criticism. As noted by the Supreme
Court, views that are different from
the government’s don’t mean
seditious. Therefore, sedition laws
can demotivate legal and lawful
criticism.
Arguments Against
the Sedition Law

6. Sedition Trial of Lokmanya Tilak (1897)
• Bal Gangadhar Tilak had published the reports of the celebration
followed by an 1894 paper on the Maratha king Shivaji by
Professor R. P. Karkaria. Karkaria presented his paper to Bombay’s
Royal Asiatic Society in 1894. This paper led to the annual
celebration of the Shivaji Coronation. Later, Tilak published the
celebrations’ reports.
Judgement
• This sedition trial is historically famous as in this case, an attempt
to excite feelings of enmity against the government was also
brought under the scope of Section 124A terming it is seditious.
Hence, it widened the understanding of Section 124A.
• Tilak was sentenced to 18 months of rigorous imprisonment.

7. Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962)
• The Supreme Court held:
• “Speech or writing to which “subverting the
government by violent means” is implicit—
including the notion of “revolution”—is
seditious.”
• A failed attempt to incite too is counted as
sedition.
• It was seditious to create public disorder.
• No “unreasonable distinction” between criticism
of the government’s measures and criticism of the
government itself was drawn.
• The constitutional validity of
Section 124A was put to a test in
this case.
• A member of a Forward Bloc
had given a speech which was
charged as sedition
Kedar Nath Singh had been convicted for sedition and inciting public mischief
because of a speech in which he criticized the government and advocated for the
Forward Communist Party.

8. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is an Indian law aimed at prevention of unlawful activities associations in India. Its main
objective was to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India.
Salient Features of the UAPA Act
•The Act gives special procedures to handle terrorist activities, among other things. It aims at the effective
prevention of unlawful activities associations in India. Unlawful activity refers to any action taken by an
individual or association intended to disrupt the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India.
•Who may commit terrorism: According to the Act, the union government may proclaim or designate an
organization as a terrorist organisation if it: (i) commits or participates in acts of terrorism, (ii) prepares for
terrorism, (iii) promotes terrorism, or (iv) is otherwise involved in terrorism. The Bill also empowers the
government to designate individuals as terrorists on the same grounds.
•UAPA has the death penalty and life imprisonment as the highest punishments.
•Under UAPA, both Indian and foreign nationals can be charged. The offenders will be charged in the same
manner whether the act is performed in a foreign land, outside India.

9. Concerns/Criticism:
Arguments in Favour of Amendments:
•The opposition voiced concerns about the
amendments, saying the provisions were against the
federal structure of the country enshrined in
the Constitution of India.
•There was no pre-legislative consultation.
•Designating an individual as a terrorist raises serious
constitutional questions and has the potential for
misuse.
• The objective of the proposed amendments is to
facilitate speedy investigation and prosecution of
terrorist offences and designating an individual as
a terrorist in line with international practices.
• A strict law is of utmost necessity to strengthen
the investigation agencies and to uproot terrorism
from this country in this regard.

10. TIMELINE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION ) ACT AND IT’S AMENDMENTS

11. Kerala Union Of Working vs Union Of India on 28 April, 2021
• Siddique Kappan, a 42-year-old news writer from Kerala, was one of the many journalists who were
detained last year. He got arrested in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, on October 5, 2020, along with three other
men.
• He was charged under Sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity), 295A(outraging sentiments) and
120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC. Subsequently, Sections 14, 17 and 18 of UAPA and Sections 65, 72 and
76 of the IT Act were also applied.
• JUDGEMENT
• The Supreme Court on directed that Kerala journalist Siddiqque Kappan be shifted from Mathura Jail in
Uttar Pradesh to a government hospital in Delhi for medical treatment. He has to be given treatment at
Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital or AIIMS or any other government hospital in Delhi.

12. Father Stan Swamy vs The State Of Maharashtra
On October 8, 2020, he was charged and convicted under the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for his alleged involvement in
the 2018 Bhima Koregaon violence and links to the Communist Party of India (Maoist).
.
Judgement
On May 28, 2021 High Court directed Fr Stan to be shifted to private hospital where he
was tested positive for COVID-19. After this High Court passed an ordered that Stan
Swamy has critical medical issues will be at private hospital.
On July 2, 2021 he challenged some sections UAPA before HC
July 4, 2021 – he suffered cardiac arrest and was put on ventilator. He passed away on 5th of
July

14. Conclusion
Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana’s sends a strong message to
the government that the Supreme Court is prima facie convinced
that sedition is being misused by the authorities to trample upon
citizens’ fundamental rights of free speech and liberty.
The Supreme Court made it clear that stringent conditions have
to be met to deny citizens their liberty, even when there is prima
facie proof of their association with a terrorist organization.

15. DANISH CHANDRA
1N
THANK YOU